F-18 carrier brake problems

[SpazSinbad]

Please keep in mind that this series of photos are from an RF-8 nose camera (to USS Midway) so the perspective shown is not the same that a pilot would see in the same aircraft. The mirror is set up for the pilot eye perspective. Every pilot will sit in different aircraft more or less at the same eye height. So the mirror angle is changed for different aircraft. However to help setup a 'deckspotting approach' to then use the meatball when it can be seen in the simulator; this series of photos is helpful I hope. On the web there are many videos of real carrier approaches by different aircraft - keep in mind that most likely the camera is not seeing what the pilot is seeing - so if the camera sees a low ball then that means the camera is below the pilot eye line. The pilot is likely seeing a centre ball.

[SUBS17]

Subs17, Great. Thanks for the demo using the HUD as it is seen. Many advantages in that for sure. I cannot make out what your airspeed is though. Can you gives us an idea what it was for most of that first video please? Thanks. Nice line up and good on glideslope. What that your heavy breathing? 

No not heavy breathing just full fuel tanks, can't remember the airspeed I think it was about 140kts after a flare it dropped to 118kts.

[Hanimichal]

look this new contact points 

[SpazSinbad]

"No not heavy breathing just full fuel tanks, can't remember the airspeed I think it was about 140kts after a flare it dropped to 118kts." subs17 are you 'pulling our legs' (making a joke)? I have forgotten now what the max AUW is for Hornet carrier landings but I don't think it allows a full fuel load. [On page 1 of this thread is a diagram with some Hornet statistics with 8,500lbs max fuel weight which I gather means no other stores at all.] Personally I would only use a few thousand pounds of fuel to help with engine response and have a lower airspeed due to lower AUW at the Optimum Angle of Attack.... but I have said that before. 

Being a carrier aircraft there is no need to flare. A flare even on a runway might mean the Hornet does an 'out of tolerance rate of descent landing' due to a stall (loss of lift). Approaching using the AoA indexer at Optimum, using a reasonable glideslope or the mirror with meatball centred will not break the Hornet (all other things being OK). Reducing fuel weight is important. Landing any aircraft with a full fuel load is unrealistic and not good in the sim either.

Landing with full fuel and a high IAS because of not using the AoA indexer at Optimum will break stuff also. Please no flaring. Tah.

[SpazSinbad]

Hanimichal, you make fun videos - very entertaining. On that first approach/circuit the LSO would not be pleased. However you demonstrate a lot of skill to get the wheels down and everything sorted to make a landing. In real world the 'break' is just past the bow to allow a minimum time downwind dirty to get everything sorted before the base turn. Otherwise there is too much to do - the LSO knows this so would wave you off if you are not setup dirty at the 'start'. Don't worry - I can see you are having fun.

Despite what you are demonstrating with new contact points the result does not look good from the outside (with nosewheel disappearing). With some practice you will land with usual contact points OK. I'm certain of that from what I have seen. Keep in mind all the points in this thread and others about carrier landing though. Deck Landings require the best precision you can input. Setup early, trimmed with low fuel. If you can set up the carrier to move with wind down the angled deck that will help reduce forces during carrier arrests. Even with a static carrier if you can have the strongest wind down the angle, that will help. I'm not sure if this can be arranged for a static carrier in FSX.

During some of the Goshawk videos at NAS Nowra the wind is the strongest at 36 knots straight down the runway AND without any turbulence. This really helps to have a slow groundspeed and more engine RPM if set up well at beginning. Also having a clear HUD in the Hornet will help a lot I think.

[SpazSinbad]

For FCLP on a runway with T-vasis (use the ordinary glidepath as indicated in the graphic) you can get a good idea about flying the Optimum Angle of Attack and flying the glideslope. If anyone can arrange to have a carrier deck (without arrestor wires) for a runway so that the mirror can be seen next to the runway that would be ideal but I don't know how to do that yet.

Practising FCLP - a lot - is mandatory for any carrier pilot so don't scoff at doing it yourself. It would also be good to have a carrier setup without wires so that 'touch and goes' could be practised without having to arrest and cat to interrupt the practice. I guess that could be done in other ways though.

[SpazSinbad]

USN FCLP video from the late 1970s probably. The full video shows Skyhawks, Crusaders and Phantoms FCLPing. The clip shows pilot view at dusk (probably for the sake of the film) with the mirror and landing area marked by lights. Note the touchdown zone - it has ALL THE RUBBER! (3Mb .WMV video 'FCLPmirrorDusk.wmv') & a longer version uploaded now.

http://files.filefront.com/FCLPmirrorDuskwmv/;13705740;/fileinfo.html (3Mb .WMV)
&
http://files.filefront.com/USN+MADDLsHiQmmwmv/;13706486;/fileinfo.html (8Mb .WMV)

[Hanimichal]

hey SpazSinbad
  thanks very much for details, because I dont know anything  in real world aircraft


In my configuration every noob like me can say: goodbye forever spin out of control in the carriers

-------------
[contact_points]
;Gear
;Wingtips
;Bottom
;Top

static_pitch = -3.100
static_cg_height = 6.600
gear_system_type=1           //Hydraulic
emergency_extension_type=2   //None=0,Pump=1,Gravity=2
max_number_of_points=11
point.0= 1,   -8.000,   0.000, -6.000, 9999, 0, 1.135, 80.000, 0.200, 3.500, 0.610, 3.000, 3.000, 0
point.1= 1,  -35.500,  -9.900, -7.400, 9999, 1, 0.635,  0.000, 0.400, 2.500, 0.546, 3.900, 3.900, 2
point.2= 1,  -35.500,   9.900, -7.400, 9999, 2, 0.635,  0.000, 0.400, 2.500, 0.546, 3.500, 3.500, 3
point.3= 2,  -37.830, -20.000,  0.000, 9999, 0, 0.000,  0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 5
point.4= 2,  -37.830,  20.000,  0.000, 9999, 0, 0.000,  0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 6
point.5= 2,   -5.000,   0.000, -1.500, 9999, 0, 0.000,  0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 4
point.6= 2,  -50.000,  -4.000, -2.000, 9999, 0, 0.000,  0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 9
point.7= 2,  -50.000,   4.000, -2.000, 9999, 0, 0.000,  0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 9
point.8= 2,  -15.000,   0.000,  5.000, 9999, 0, 0.000,  0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 4
point.9= 2,  -48.000,  -6.600,  9.000, 9999, 0, 0.000,  0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 9
point.10= 2, -48.000,   6.600,  9.000, 9999, 0, 0.000,  0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 9
--------------------

[SpazSinbad]

Hanimichal, Nothing wrong with starting out. I need to do that in FSX but as you can see I'm not setup for carriers so far - doing other things. However I do not see the point if you are starting out to use the most difficult flight settings, when you can just as easily wind them back to middle or easy. Then with practice introduce more difficult settings. No need to mess with contact points because (as we can see) things are not so good anyway. Sure you have to learn how to carrier land - which is much different to landing on a runway. That is the point. Don't expect to land on a carrier the same way you might land on a runway.

Remember not every approach can have a good landing - not even in the real world. Pilots can Wave Off or they are told to Wave Off. If things are not going very well then start again. No need to crash on deck. What is the point of that if you can see it coming? Wave Off and try again. Practice Practice Practice. Did I say Practice? Every carrier pilot needs practice before during and after they learn how to carrier land. No one ever gets an approach 100% correct. They may get close but they always strive for the best every time. If it is not working out then they wave off.

FCLP ashore is worthwhile practice with the T-vasi with the hook down so that you see a proper steady AoA indexer. Practice. The whole point of Navy flying is to carrier land. If you cannot do that then you are not a Carrier pilot. So practice - but I said that. Real world requires constant practice ashore and afloat. No ifs or buts. Practice practice practice. It is fun because it is difficult and it is always difficult to do it 100% correct. You can see precisely via the AoA indexer and line up and meatball how bad or good your approach is every millisecond. Always get back to the ideal. Don't accept anything less.

[jimi08]

Spaz,

After reading some of your posts, I can't help but notice your comments about the AoA indexer.  You mentioned that due to it blinking with the tail hook in the up position, that it isn't of any good use.  If you are on a stabilized approach, your AoA should not be changing THAT rapidly between the 1 second intervals that the indexer blinks.  I know your remedy to the  problem is to make the approaches with the hook down, but you might want to try the following if you decide to go back to making approaches with the hook up.

1.  Since your AOA indexer is directly related to your angle of attack, use it as a secondary input.  By this, I mean once you are established on the approach with the amber donut (blinking or not) confirm that your AoA on the HUD is right around 8(+/- 1 degree), which is what gives you the amber donut.

2.  Take a look at your airspeed.  As long as you maintain your weight/airspeed combination you will remain "on-speed" for that approach.

3.  Once you are "on the ball" make sure you keep your velocity vector around 3.5 to 4 degrees below the horizon line in your HUD

4.  Maintain your optimum "on-speed" while keeping the velocity vector at 3.5 to 4 degrees below the horizon until touchdown.

Tips:  As you make your approach, keep an eye on the ball, if you notice you are getting a little low on the approach, add a little power to bring the velocity vector closer the the horizon line in your HUD, once you are pretty close to being back on the ball, reduce power, to lower the velocity vector back around 3.5 to 4 degrees below the horizon line.  If you are a little above the glideslope, do the opposite by reducing power a little to bring the velocity vector down to around the 5 degree line below the horizon.  Once you are close to getting back on the glideslope, increase power to maintain.  Once you are back on, double check that you are still at the speed that gave you the amber donut (or check that the AoA is still indicating about 8 degrees on your HUD).  Hope this helps.

-Jimi

[SUBS17]

"No not heavy breathing just full fuel tanks, can't remember the airspeed I think it was about 140kts after a flare it dropped to 118kts." subs17 are you 'pulling our legs' (making a joke)? I have forgotten now what the max AUW is for Hornet carrier landings but I don't think it allows a full fuel load. [On page 1 of this thread is a diagram with some Hornet statistics with 8,500lbs max fuel weight which I gather means no other stores at all.] Personally I would only use a few thousand pounds of fuel to help with engine response and have a lower airspeed due to lower AUW at the Optimum Angle of Attack.... but I have said that before. 

Being a carrier aircraft there is no need to flare. A flare even on a runway might mean the Hornet does an 'out of tolerance rate of descent landing' due to a stall (loss of lift). Approaching using the AoA indexer at Optimum, using a reasonable glideslope or the mirror with meatball centred will not break the Hornet (all other things being OK). Reducing fuel weight is important. Landing any aircraft with a full fuel load is unrealistic and not good in the sim either.

Landing with full fuel and a high IAS because of not using the AoA indexer at Optimum will break stuff also. Please no flaring. Tah.

I was proving a point that it could be done in FSX of course the AoA is well modeled in the FSX acceleration hornet but also as the video shows take offs don't require the CAT either.

[SpazSinbad]

Jimi08, Thanks for HUD advice. I would not know how to use it so any hints are welcome. To me that is entirely a different way to carrier land - rather than use the AoA indexer. I'm very comfortable using the indexer (even though I may have to drop the hook 'unnecessarily'). I'll need to practice a lot ashore using the HUD exclusively to get the 'hang of it' as you have described.

As you have described maybe it it timely to remind users how to 'carrier land'? It is different compared to the more usual method to land on a runway. I was initially trained with the Oz Air Force (RAAF) then went back to the RAN after that basic flight training. My RAAF instructors compared the 'carrier landing' approach to a conventional 'short landing' technique. This required full flap, steady airspeed some 5-10 knots above aircraft stall speed with power on and a steeper than usual approach angle (however a flare was required at the end).

A conventional landing requires (in my book anyway) reducing power, airspeed with a constant approach angle and with a flare at the end. The carrier approach requires constant AoA at Optimum, with constant approach angle and excellent line up.

However a Navy pilot uses power to keep the rate of descent at optimum to be on the meatball centred glideslope. While the nose is moved up or down slightly as the power is increased or decreased to maintain the OAoA (airspeed). This is the reverse of the conventional technique (as I was taught by the RAAF). This different way of using power and nose position takes some getting used to - hence the practice required (away from the carrier - doing FCLP). That is how I'll practice the new HUD technique. No point in doing too much at the carrier that is new. The carrier environment requires total mastery of the technique.

Many other posts here and on the web (mentioned in URLs on this site) have a ton of information and detail on how to carrier land. If anyone tries to use a conventional landing technique with a flare to carrier land - then good luck to them. 

[SpazSinbad]

Subs17, people will do as they please I realise. My advice is usually very general because there is no way I can know how people are using FSX even though they post videos. I still cannot see what they are doing to produce the result in the video. For example dialling up the sim difficulty to the max then crippling it by changing the hardpoints is counterproductive. May as well dial down the difficulty and leave the hardpoints alone.

To me the only reason to use FSX is to use Navy aircraft with good AoA indexers. I realise that most users use FSX differently and have a lot of fun. My posts have been to point out that carrier landing requires different techniques and some 'how to advice'. I reckon the sim is there to enjoy so I hope people can do that and not be frustrated by the difficulty of carrier landing. With practice (mostly ashore and then later at the carrier) it will be a lot of fun. That is how I see things. I think it is totally unnecessary to change stuff to overcome poor carrier landing technique.

Now I have to go practice the new HUD technique (a lot). 

[SUBS17]

Yeah I use full realism and haven't edited anything yet, the pros for FSX accelerations carrier ops are that it is not scripted like previous sims and the player has full freedom on the deck to taxi up to the cat and launch. A big let down is the MP in particular the AI carriers not being MP compatible. I actually like the fact that you do have to lower your weight by dumping fuel to land previous sims never modeled this and its a step in the right direction just a pity that there is no combat yet.(eventhough my videos show some bad examples) The only sim thats more detailed as far as carrierOps is concerned is the VRS Superhornet which requires the calculation of the aircrafts end speed and take off trim setting for the cat launch by using tables. Now all we need is a sim that combines the best of both for the ultimate carrier based sim.

[SpazSinbad]

Subs17, what freeware carrier would you recommend to go do some carrier flying from? Does your carrier move and is there a strong wind down the angle deck? Thanks. I used to do carrier stuff in all the other versions of Fsim but soon gave up. FSX certainly looks a lot better - as you are saying.

Have you used the freeware Goshawk? Latest version 1.8 is out and it is good for practice using AoA (not sure if the HUD is as usable as the Hornet HUD). Why? Because I use only the indexer. 

http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.com/2009/05/t-45c-goshawk-version-180-released.html

Soon there will be a KAHU Skyhawk available with a nice see through HUD and an excellent AoA indexer alongside. Latest video showing working slats and proper spoiler function here: (44Mb .WMV)

http://files.filefront.com/KahuDroopSlatsSpoilersOKtTwmv/;13711907;/fileinfo.html